“Oops I did it again,
I played with the voters, got lost in my emails,
Oh, Billy, Billy,
Oops, you think I’m sincere,
With emails sent from my server,
But I’m not that innocent…
Please disregard my poor rhyming skills – that’s not focal point of this particular piece. Rather, Clinton’s inability to divulge the truth is. For months, Democrats were sick of hearing about her “damn emails – a point in the Democratic Primary that I believe weakened Bernie’s chances of being victorious – but in reality, we do want to hear about them now. Just last week, the Inspector General, who is employed by the State Department, disclosed the seriousness of Clinton’s email violations. For one, she simply didn’t abide by the stated rules; some rules that she herself constructed . And secondly, she lied to the American people when she asserted that her actions were a mistake. The truth is that she consciously bypassed security protocol by utilizing her own server – at one point, she requested permission to use a private server but was outright denied. Here’s what’s clear: Clinton lied.
As to how this relates to the election: it literally turns it on its head. With California right around the corner and the convention late next month, the timing of this story may surely propel Sanders to becoming the nominee. Look, losing California would be an embarrassment to the Clinton machine. This is a state that she won handedly against Barack Obama in 2008. What sort of momentum does the Clinton campaign think they have right now? They’re running on fumes. The aforementioned point, when coupled with the pending FBI investigation, has the establishment trembling. But this is their own doing! How is it a Democratic process to have 400 superdelegates already pledge allegiance to Hillary Clinton prior to debates even commencing? And while I understand that they’re used as a stopgap mechanism (primarily due to the McGovern blowout), they’re not functioning in the intended manner.
Furthermore, if the superdelegates are considered a way whereby the party can protect itself against weak candidates, then why isn’t Clinton being strictly scrutinized? She is a weak candidate. Whether it’s the Inspector General’s report; the Clinton Foundation scandal; polling weakly against Trump; or the pending FBI investigation, she’s an incredibly tainted candidate. Imagine a scenario where an FBI indictment arises during the General Election – she’ll be forced to drop out. If she were to become commander-in-chief, an indictment will presumably result in impeachment. This could destroy liberal-leaning politics for years to come.
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that she’s indicted prior the Democratic Convention: will the Party establishment attempt to insert a surprise ticket? I doubt it. A decision to do so would fracture the Democratic Party akin to what happened with progressives during the Bull Moose era. So, what’s the solution? Select the candidate who polls strongest against Donald Trump, has the most passionate base, and contains the highest level of integrity. Yes, Sanders will be pummeled for his ideological affiliation with democratic socialism, but that’s not an impeachable offense, nor is it a deal breaker. Plus, Sanders can handle Trump’s factless, boisterous banter during a head-to-head debate.
If the Democratic wants to save face, it better demand an expedited process in regards to Clinton’s email dilemma. A refusal to do so before the Democratic Convention will only allow the cloud of corruption to linger over Clinton’s head.
Don’t worry Sanders supporters, the roller coaster ride may finish with only Sanders on board.